Congressional Record: June 20, 2006 (House)]
[Page H4275-H4290]                  



 
             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

 
 
 
                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Schiff:
       At the end of the bill (before the Short Title), insert the 
     following:

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. (a) None of the funds made available in this 
     Act may be used to engage in electronic surveillance in the 
     United States except as authorized under--
       (1) the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 
     U.S.C. 1801 et seq.); or
       (2) chapter 119 or chapter 121 of title 18, United States 
     Code.
       (b) For purposes of this section, the terms ``electronic 
     surveillance'' and ``United States'' have the meanings given 
     those

[[Page H4276]]

     terms in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
     Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801).

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman Young and 
Ranking Member Murtha for forging a strong bill to fund our Defense 
Department and DOD entities, and I applaud them for their hard work and 
dedication. As we consider this important bill today, I appreciate the 
opportunity to address a crucial issue.
  At the outset, I want to thank my colleague Mr. Inslee for all of his 
leadership on this issue, which has been tremendous. We have been 
working side by side on this amendment today. I would also like to 
thank Mr. Flake that I have introduced legislation along with for his 
tremendous leadership. This amendment is, in fact, based on legislation 
that I have offered with Mr. Flake. I also want to thank Mr. Van Hollen 
for all of his leadership.
  The bill that I introduced with Representative Flake several months 
ago was a bipartisan bill of five Democratic Members and five 
Republican Members, and addresses the NSA surveillance program that 
almost every Member of this body learned about in the morning 
newspaper.
  This amendment recognizes two important principles: First, that the 
government must have all of the tools necessary and all of the 
authority required to pursue al Qaeda and other terrorists who would 
seek to harm our country. And second, this amendment recognizes that we 
are a Nation of laws.
  While the President possesses the inherent authority to engage in 
electronic surveillance of the enemy outside the country, Congress 
possesses the authority to regulate such surveillance within the United 
States, and, in fact, Congress has spoken in this area through Title 
III and through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  When Congress passed these statutes, it intended that they provide 
the sole authority for surveillance on American soil. Our amendment 
simply reinforces existing law that the government must obtain a court 
order when U.S. persons are targeted or surveillance occurs in the 
United States of America.
  Recently when the Attorney General testified in the Judiciary 
Committee, I asked about the limiting principle of the NSA program; was 
it restricted only to international calls; what if the administration 
decided tomorrow it had the inherent authority to tap purely domestic 
calls between two Americans, did it feel it could do so without court 
order; and the Attorney General said that he would not rule it out. He 
would not rule out having the pure authority without going to court to 
tap the calls between two Americans on American soil.
  So what is the limiting principle if this program can change from day 
to day without the input of Congress? The only limiting principle is 
the good faith of the executive, which, when the executive shows it is 
infallible, might be a sufficient limiting principle, but the executive 
is no more infallible than we are here in Congress, and so we have a 
role to play.
  In enacting FISA, Congress specifically sought to balance our 
national security interests with legitimate civil liberty concerns. In 
so doing, Congress expressly permitted surveillance without court order 
for 15 days after the declaration of a war.
  Additionally, Congress provided the authority to engage in electronic 
surveillance for up to 72 hours without court order.
  Furthermore, after the September 11 attacks, the administration came 
to Congress and asked us to modify FISA to respond to the new 
challenges in the war on terror, and Congress responded by making those 
changes.
  Electronic surveillance of al Qaeda operatives and others seeking to 
harm our country must continue; it simply can and should comply with 
the law.
  We stand ready to work with the administration if further statutory 
revisions to FISA or other authorities are required to meet the new 
challenges in the war on terrorism. Until then, we must restore the 
rule of law. I urge the House to do so today.
  I know my colleagues Mr. Sherman, Mr. Inslee, and Mr. Van Hollen will 
want to strike the last word to speak on this as well.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, Chairman Hunter, the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee is not here today due to a important personal commitment in 
his district, and he asked me to state his opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it goes without saying that this is an 
extremely important provision, and this amendment would do, in my 
opinion and in Chairman Hunter's opinion, great damage to the ability 
of our country to provide national security for the American people.
  That is why the administration also strongly opposes the Inslee-
Schiff amendment. It is a direct effort to cut off the President's 
ability to engage in surveillance pursuant to his constitutional 
authority, and the authorization to use military force as passed by the 
Congress.
  The program has been briefed to all members of the House and Senate 
Intelligence Committees. They are fully briefed to all aspects of the 
terrorist surveillance program and are conducting oversight.
  I would just point out NSA Director General Hayden said on January 
23, 2006, at the National Press Club, ``The TSP allows interception of 
the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda 
and related terrorist organizations. There are no communications more 
important to the safety of this country than those affiliated with al 
Qaeda with one end in the United States. The purpose here is to detect 
and prevent future attacks.''
  In underscoring the importance of this, on January 25, 2 days later, 
the President of the United States said, ``The 9/11 Commission made 
clear in this era of new dangers, we must be able to connect the dots 
before the terrorists strike so we can stop new attacks.'' And the NSA 
program, he said, is doing just that.
  Those of us on the Armed Services Committee and other Members of 
Congress in various other capacities work night and day trying to 
provide a high level of national security for our country. This 
amendment would do damage to that effort. It would make that effort at 
least much more difficult.
  To the credit of the CIA and to the credit of the administration and 
our government generally, we have been able to get through the years 
since September 11, 2001, without additional attacks.
  The activities are reviewed for this program every 45 days. We are 
making every attempt to make sure that this program is carried out 
correctly and safely and doesn't infringe on the rights of the American 
people. The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly 
reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, 
including NSA's general counsel and inspector general.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The problem we have here is those of us who have been briefed on the 
program, even though admittedly we were not briefed until it became 
public, can't talk about the program. I was briefed for an hour and 45 
minutes, and I feel comfortable that there are adequate safeguards. But 
we can't talk about the safeguards.
  I asked NSA, what can we say about the program and not violate the 
security? And they said, well, you have to look at what the President 
said. Well, I looked at what the President said, and he didn't say very 
much. This is a real problem we are getting into, and the more we talk 
about it, the more difficult it makes it.
  Now you are actually authorizing this program. If you vote for this, 
you authorize this program. You say you have safeguards. That is what 
you are going to have. If this passes, this authorizes this program. At 
one point we couldn't even say that this program existed. So I think 
this is a very difficult time for those of us who have been briefed 
about it.

                              {time}  1615

  And I know there are a lot of people in the executive branch that 
know about it. But the way I read this amendment, you say follow the 
proper procedure and you agree with the amendment. You agree with the 
procedures. I think that there is some real benefit if they do it 
right. But if this passes, I think you ought to know this is 
authorizing the program. And if it

[[Page H4277]]

fails, you are saying, in fact, let them go ahead and not pass. So we 
are in a catch-22 position here, Mr. Chairman. And we can't talk about 
it at all. And I think we have to be careful that more and more people 
don't talk about it so that more people don't know the value of the 
program. We have got a heck of a problem here. And I recommend we vote 
against it. But if we vote against it, then we actually are saying, 
well, you can go ahead with the program as it is. And yet I believe 
there are enough safeguards. But if we pass it, we actually are 
authorizing the program.
  I don't even know if we can work it out, Mr. Chairman, because there 
are so few people that really know about the program.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The amendment says 
that there is a prohibition on using funds to fund this program unless 
it meets the requirements of FISA. Any part of the program that does 
meet the requirements of FISA, meet the existing law passed by the 
Congress, could continue to be funded. Those parts that don't meet the 
requirements of FISA, the administration will have to go back.
  Mr. MURTHA. Let me take back the time. I agree with that. I agree. 
And I think there are sufficient safeguards in the program already. We 
are in a bad situation here, Mr. Chairman. I don't know that I can say 
any more.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment. As Mr. Murtha has suggested, there is a lot that can't be 
said about this amendment and about this program. But what I would like 
to say is, let's don't tie our hands behind our back when we are 
fighting a vicious, cruel enemy.
  Intelligence is extremely important in the war against terrorism. 
First of all, you don't have, in this particular war, you don't have an 
army against an army. You don't have a country against a country. You 
have terrorists attacking innocent people here in the United States on 
September 11, and leading up to September 11, and anywhere else in the 
world that they decide that they are going to attack.
  One of the best defenses against these attacks is the ability to know 
where they might be or when they might strike or what the target might 
be. Don't deny the people on the front lines of this intelligence war 
and information war and the hot war, don't deny them every tool that 
they can possibly have.
  As Mr. Murtha said, for those that have been briefed on this program 
on a regular basis, I am not aware of anyone who is concerned that the 
rights of Americans to their privacy have been violated. I certainly do 
not believe that the rights of Americans have been violated in this 
program. And so I think it is crucial to oppose this amendment; this is 
far beyond politics. It goes a lot deeper. This goes to the safety and 
the security of American people wherever they might be. And it is 
unfortunate that we can't reveal everything that is done, how it is 
done, where it is done, when it is done; but believe me, it is 
effective and the privacy of the American people have been protected.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, of course I would yield.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your thoughts and I appreciate 
your yielding. And we are up against a vicious enemy, and we ought to 
have every power of intelligence and every tool in the tool box and I 
completely agree with that. I think we can do that within the laws that 
the Congress has passed. And the gravamen of my concern is something 
that took place in the Senate, when one of our GOP colleagues asked the 
administration, during the debate over the PATRIOT reauthorization, 
which I supported, do we need to change FISA. We were making modest 
changes to FISA, and the Republican Senator said, Do we need to do 
something larger? And the administration response was no, that FISA is 
operating just fine as it is.
  Now, if there are changes that need to be made, there is a 72-hour 
after-the-fact authorization. If that window is too short, it can be 
lengthened. If there are other problems, they be changed. And all that 
can be changed without disclosing to the public the nature of the 
program itself.
  I haven't been briefed on it. I am not one of the lucky few, or maybe 
I am lucky. But it concerns me when the administration says we don't 
need to change existing law, when I think we can retain all of these 
tools, but the Congress can play its role in making sure that these 
programs are authorized by law, that they are not being conducted 
extralegally.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Well, let me reclaim my time and suggest that 
if you want to rewrite FISA, you don't do it on the floor on an 
appropriations bill. You introduce a bill, or you go to the proper 
committee of proper jurisdiction. This is not something you do on the 
floor. This is serious. It is not something you do on the floor without 
any real hearings or consideration. If you want to change FISA, let the 
authorizing committee change it. They are the ones that have the 
jurisdiction.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I will.
  Mr. DICKS. I am also one of those who have not been briefed on this 
particular program. But I would like to ask the gentleman, is the 
gentleman suggesting that the administration is not complying with 
FISA?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am not.
  Mr. DICKS. Well, you know, that would certainly clear it up without 
getting into any classified information if somebody here, the chairman 
of the Intelligence Committee or the chairman of the Full Committee or 
someone can say, yes, the administration is complying with FISA, and 
they have taken this program to the FISA court for clearance. That is 
what people who support this amendment are concerned about, that 
Congress enacted legislation here saying that if you want to go out and 
gather this kind of information, you have to first go to the FISA court 
to get approval and to show cause. I think that is what this really all 
gets down to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Young of 
Florida was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. So that is the question we have here, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I will continue to yield in just a minute. On 
the legal aspects of this, I am going to Mr. Lungren. I think he is 
prepared, and he will probably get his own time, because I am limited 
to 2 minutes.
  But in the minute I have left, I will yield to Mr. LaHood.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I am the longest-serving 
member of the Intelligence Committee. I am in my eighth year. I am the 
vice chairman of the committee.
  If it were disclosed, the answers that you want, it would be a 
violation of those who serve on the committee and those who have been 
briefed. They can't disclose that information. They will be thrown off 
the committee.
  Mr. DICKS. I was on the committee for 8 years and served as the 
ranking member.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I know you were. But this is highly classified 
information.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has the time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have yielded to the gentleman 
from Illinois.
  Mr. LaHOOD. This is highly classified information. What you all need 
to know is, the people that you have put your trust in, that the 
leadership have put their trust in, those that serve on the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, those that serve on the Intelligence 
Committee have been briefed. Now you have to trust them that they know 
what is going on here.
  All 435 members can't be briefed. You know why they can't be briefed, 
because we all love to talk and it would get out.
  So what I am saying to you, the gentleman from California, the author 
of the amendment, you need to trust Mr. Murtha, you need to trust the 
chairman of the committee. You need to trust Mr. Hoekstra. You need to 
trust Jane Harman. These are people with the responsibility from your 
leadership to serve on these committees. They know what is going on.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Will the gentleman yield so I can respond to the 
question?

[[Page H4278]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the other 
Members get their own time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into the specific debate on this 
amendment because I think there are equities on both sides. But I must 
comment on a statement that was just made by the gentleman from 
Illinois when he said that the reason this information can't be more 
broadly shared is because people in Congress like to talk.
  When Mr. Negroponte was before the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, and I have been an ex oficio member of that committee now 
for over 12 years, but when I asked Mr. Negroponte, who, after all, is 
the Director of Intelligence, when I asked him whether or not he could 
cite a single instance in which any member of the Defense 
Appropriations Committee had ever leaked any classified information, he 
indicated he could not.
  I also asked him, and I think this is an accurate recollection, I 
also asked him if he could tell me how many times stories had appeared 
in the Washington Times that his own agency thought had been leaked by 
the executive branch of government.
  And I asked him how many times he thought those leaks had been 
provided by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. And his response 
was, to the best of his knowledge, none.
  And yet, I want to make clear, not all members of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee have been briefed. Now, I believe they 
should have, because taxpayers dollars go through the appropriations 
bill, and I think every member of that subcommittee needs to know what 
the facts are on this case.
  But the fact is, let's not get into the belief that it is the 
Congress who routinely leaks. The White House routinely leaks more 
classified information than the Congress even has. And anybody who 
doesn't believe that doesn't know the score.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I can't quote Mr. Negroponte, 
but I can quote Benjamin Franklin who, in 1776, explained the unanimous 
decision of the Committee on Secret Correspondence for not telling 
their colleagues in the Continental Congress about a covert operation. 
And he said we find by fatal experience that Congress--
  Mr. OBEY. I am going to take back my time. I was prepared to 
entertain a serious question. That is not a serious question. I am not 
interested in what happened 200 years ago. I am interested in what is 
happening today and tomorrow.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Defense Subcommittee on 
Appropriations, as well as the House Select Committee on Intelligence. 
I'd like to answer several questions that have come up with this 
amendment.
  When questioned about the purpose of this amendment, the author said 
that he thought that the FISA law, or the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, should be rewritten. And there are some who believe 
that legislation should be rewritten because it was originally penned 
in 1978, and we have had significant changes in technology since that 
time. Each of us carries a phone or BlackBerry, none of which existed 
in that format back at the time. So there have been changes that have 
gone on to our technology.
  But to answer the question of the gentleman from Washington, the 
administration does believe that they are within the current law, and 
they do believe they have the authority to do what the gentleman has 
alleged that they are doing. I don't think that there is anything that 
really needs to be expressed much beyond this, except that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) said he believes that FISA 
should be rewritten, if it doesn't meet the requirements of today's 
environment, it should be rewritten. This amendment doesn't do that. 
All this amendment does is strike funds for any electronic surveillance 
program in the United States. And I think that would be an opportunity 
for putting this country in peril.
  One of the reasons we haven't had an attack since September 11, 2001, 
is because we have used every means necessary to keep ahead of the 
terrorists.

                              {time}  1630

  The terrorists have used videos to advance their ideals. They have 
used the Internet. They have used Web sites. They have tried to raise 
money and reach out and touch Americans in a negative way again and 
again and again. And this country has done everything possible to 
prevent that from happening, and they have done it successfully, and 
they have done it by using technology. And this amendment appears to be 
tying hands on our ability to use technology, and I think that is 
wrong.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Very quickly, the only thing the amendment provides is that 
surveillance on American soil cannot be funded if it is not in 
compliance with FISA. So if you are in compliance, if this program 
complies with FISA, it could go on.
  Just to address the chairman's point, and this is on the same point 
you are making, too, which is we should not be debating this on the 
House floor, that you should introduce the bill, and it should be heard 
in committee. Mr. Chairman, we have introduced the bill. I along with 
Mr. Flake, Mr. Inglis, Mr. Leach, and others have introduced the bill. 
We have not been able to get a hearing in committee, and so the only 
opportunity for us to raise this issue is on the House floor
  Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, I suggest you pursue your bill then, 
because what you are doing here absolutely ties the hands of the 
Federal Government from protecting us, and it does not rewrite FISA.
  Now, let me also make this argument that FISA is a very narrow 
portion of our law. There is a much broader scope that is applicable to 
the situation necessary to protect this country. So focusing on one 
portion of the law is tying our hands and trying to make the whole 
world comply with this one narrow segment of law, in my view, it ties 
our hand, and I don't think we should do it.
  What I would suggest is that you withdraw this amendment, pursue your 
bill, along with the Republican cosponsors, because this does tie our 
hands. It gives us an opportunity to be less safe, and I suggest the 
gentleman withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there are times where the Constitution needs to be 
considered, and this is one of those times. Those of us who support 
this amendment, I hope that both Republicans and Democrats will do so 
because I think Republicans and Democrats ought to agree on one central 
proposition, and that is the proposition that our government ought to 
protect our citizens aggressively, assertively. We need electronic 
surveillance to be doing it to the full extent of the law, and that 
intelligence should be done in compliance with the American way.
  There is an American way to do intelligence, and there is a Chinese 
way to do intelligence. There is a Turkish way to do intelligence. 
There is a Russian way to do intelligence. And there is an American way 
to do intelligence. And the American way to do intelligence is to do a 
very simple thing: Comply with the law that has been passed and signed 
by Congresses and Presidents.
  And all this amendment does is say a very simple proposition: You 
don't spend taxpayers' money to do illegal acts by the Federal 
Government. That is all it says. And when it passes, we will do 
assertive, aggressive intelligence of these scoundrels by doing a very 
simple thing: Get a warrant. And if you do not have time to get a 
warrant, get it 72 hours after you do the intelligence, because the 
FISA Court allows that to happen. That is the simple proposition here.
  Now, why is that important? It is important because the people who 
fought the Revolution realized that no American is perfect, and that 
includes no American President. To the proposition that all men are 
created equal, you can add the proposition that no

[[Page H4279]]

man is created perfectly. And that is why we demand some judicial 
oversight on this.
  And, by the way, the central argument I have heard about this is that 
a few Congressmen have said it is okay, apparently. Well, calling a few 
Congressmen is not enough under the law. Why? Because the law is very 
specific. It says that each application for an order approving 
electronic surveillance under this subchapter shall be made by a 
Federal officer in writing, upon oath or affirmation, to a judge. To a 
judge. And we are great Congressmen. I have eminent respect for all the 
people who were briefed on this. But not a single one of them wears a 
black robe, and not a single one of them was given authority by the 
United States Constitution to make this decision. Calling Ray or Norm 
or any of my great colleagues and saying, ``Does this sound okay to 
you,'' is not enough in American democracy.
  Now, we have had other occasions in our democracy where we have been 
challenged by fear, and I do not want to see us succumb to that again. 
And for those of us who think it shouldn't bother us, the President is 
not going to bug us, other nations have lost their liberty because of 
that attitude, because some Supreme Court Justice said loss of liberty 
does not come like a curtain coming down like a thunderclap. It comes 
the way the twilight comes, gradually, and you do not notice.
  Do not wink at this potential violation. Say that we are going to do 
intelligence the American way. For those people in Iraq and Afghanistan 
who are risking their lives for democracy and the liberties we enjoy, 
don't we have enough gumption to send a simple message to the executive 
branch of the United States from the U.S. Congress, a very simple 
message that we expect the law to be fulfilled, that our personal 
protection to be fulfilled by getting a warrant the way the law 
requires? That is all that we require.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  There has been a lot of talk about following the law. People seem to 
ignore what Griffin Bell said at the time the Carter administration 
brought this bill before the Congress to be passed into law. At that 
time he very carefully said that enactment of FISA did not exclude the 
authority the President has under the Constitution.
  We have heard on this floor about illegal acts. I would remind my 
colleagues that the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, and 
the President has inherent authority under Article II of the 
Constitution in this area. We may not like it, but the fact of the 
matter is that is one of the reasons you have elections for a 
President, to have the authority and the power that he has under the 
Constitution. The vesting clause of Article II of the Constitution 
which gives the President executive authority, coupled with his 
authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, forms the basis 
for the surveillance of al Qaeda members and those who are affiliated 
with al Qaeda.
  The President's actions are certainly consistent with the Founding 
Fathers, as expressed in John Jay's observation in Federalist Paper No. 
64: ``The President . . . will be able to manage the business of 
intelligence in such manner as prudence may suggest.'' An examination 
of historical records makes clear that the Founding Fathers intended 
the President to have primary, if not exclusive, control over the 
business of intelligence. We may not like it, but that is what the 
Constitution establishes. We may have a FISA law, but that does not 
restrict the President if, in fact, he has inherent authority under the 
Constitution.
  The argument that the President has somehow violated the law 
misunderstands that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. 
Congress has no more authority to intrude on the executive authority of 
the President than the President does on the enumerated authority of 
the Congress. As James Wilson argued during the ratification debate in 
his own home State of Pennsylvania: ``The President of the United 
States can shield himself and refuse to carry into effect an act of 
Congress that violates the Constitution.'' In the same context, John 
Jay points out in Federalist 64 that ``it surely does not follow that 
because they have given the power of making laws to the Legislature, 
that therefore they should likewise give them power to do every other 
act of sovereignty by which the citizens are to be bound and 
affected.'' The United States Supreme Court summed it up well in Ex 
parte Miligan: ``Neither can the President in war more than in peace 
intrude upon the proper authority of Congress, nor Congress upon the 
proper authority of the President. Both are servants of the people, 
whose will is expressed in the fundamental law.''
  It is interesting to note for those who have talked about historical 
record that the First Congress, which created the Department of 
Treasury and the Departments of War and Foreign Affairs, gave Congress 
access to the records and papers of the Treasury Department, but not to 
the Departments of Foreign Affairs and War. It is clear that the power 
of the President vis-a-vis Congress was broader with respect to foreign 
affairs than it was in the domestic realm of governance. We may not 
like it, but that is what the Constitution says.
  According to Madison, the ultimate check on Presidential power 
possessed by the Congress rests with the ``first principle in free 
government.''
  According to John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, the limits on such 
Presidential authority must be found elsewhere in the Constitution 
itself.
  Look, we ought to look at what Justice White observed in his 
concurring opinion in the Katz decision. These are the words of Justice 
White: ``Wiretapping to protect the security of the Nation has been 
authorized by successive Presidents.'' In other words, it did not start 
with this administration. He said, ``The present administration would 
apparently save national security cases from restrictions against 
wiretapping.'' Again, Justice White's words: ``We should not require 
the warrant procedure and the magistrate's judgment if the President of 
the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has 
considered the requirements of national security and authorized 
electronic surveillance as reasonable.''
  As explained publicly by the President, he followed the prescription 
of Justice White. He has personally had hands-on over this. He has had 
his Attorney General with hands-on authority over this. But then in 
addition, he did notify the Congress. He notified the leadership of the 
House and the Senate. He notified the leadership of the House and the 
Senate committees of jurisdiction. No, he did not notify all of us, but 
he comported with the law and the interpretation of the Constitution 
suggested by Justice White.
  I would suggest if one looks up the definition of the word 
``moderate'' in Webster's Dictionary, you would find the picture of 
Justice White. He started the middle ground on all of this.
  So I would suggest, as we look at this, we understand that we may 
have a debate about how the President has done it, but to suggest that 
what he has done is unlawful or illegal does not recognize either the 
Constitution or the comments of the Founding Fathers in support of the 
Constitution.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, when President Carter signed the FISA into law, he said 
in his signing statement: The bill requires for the first time a prior 
judicial warrant for all electronic surveillance for foreign 
intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States in 
which communications of U.S. persons might be intercepted. It clarifies 
the executive's authority to gather foreign intelligence by electronic 
surveillance in the United States. It will remove any doubt about the 
legality of those surveillances which are conducted to protect our 
country against espionage and international terrorism. It will assure 
FBI field agents and others involved in intelligence collection that 
their acts are authorized by statute, and, if a person's communications 
are concerned, by a court order, and it will protect the privacy of the 
American people.
  In my reading of FISA, and I served for 8 years on the Intelligence 
Committee, 4 years as the ranking member, I do not think there is an 
exception here. I do not think the President of the United States has 
inherent authority to violate FISA.
  If you took Mr. Lungren's approach to this problem, he can comply 
with

[[Page H4280]]

FISA when he wants to. He does not have to do it ever. That simply 
cannot be the reason Congress enacted this statute.
  I think President Carter had it right when he signed this into law. 
There is one way and only one way to gather foreign surveillance 
information domestically, and that is you go and get a warrant and go 
to the FISA Court first. First. And maybe you have 72 hours to do that. 
That is certainly understandable.
  But in my mind, if you want to change FISA, change FISA. But I cannot 
accept an interpretation that says the President can comply with FISA 
when he wants to, and he does not have to comply with it when he does 
not think it is in his best interest to do so. He is not a king. He is 
a President.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I want people to understand the sweeping 
scope of Mr. Lungren's argument. What he argues is that the President 
of the United States, during a time of fear and war that we are now in, 
has the unchecked, unfettered, unlimited authority to ignore not just 
FISA, but any law passed by the Congress of the United States and 
signed by any President. His argument here means that no law restricts 
this President or any other President to do anything else. Not just 
intelligence. Torture, false imprisonment; you go as far as you want.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to ask the author 
of the amendment.
  Both of you are the authors of this amendment.
  There is no restriction on the utilization of money if the President 
has complied with FISA; is that not correct?
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. That is absolutely right. The only thing that the 
amendment does is it says that when you are surveilling people on our 
home soil here in the United States of America, it has to be authorized 
by FISA. If it is not authorized by FISA, if it is outside of FISA, you 
cannot use the funds in this bill.

                              {time}  1645

  The gentleman from Illinois says, ``Trust us. There are some of us 
that know the program, trust us. We can't disclose information about 
the program here on the House floor.'' I am not asking anyone to 
disclose information about the program on the House floor. The only 
question raised by this amendment is are we funding programs that are 
in contravention of existing law, FISA.
  I think you are exactly right about my colleague from California's 
argument, which is basically the President has the inherent authority 
to do anything he wants when he wants, surveil who he wants when he 
wants, how he wants, for whatever reason he wants.
  In fact, this is why I made the point. When the Attorney General 
testified in committee, he said he believed, as evidently my colleague 
from California does, the President has the inherent authority to tap 
calls between two Americans on American soil, that he wouldn't rule 
that out.
  Well, I am not satisfied by an argument that says, trust us. We are 
from the government.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think President Carter 
had it right. He said all electronic surveillance for foreign 
intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States has 
to come under the FISA Court. That makes sense. That is, I think, the 
purpose of this amendment, is to make certain that the money is being 
expended in compliance with FISA.
  The gentleman is a cosponsor of this amendment. Is that your 
understanding?
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is 
exactly right. The President can do all of the intelligence he needs to 
do in a way that complies with FISA. That is what we want him to do. 
That is what the Constitution requires.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the main sponsor of this 
amendment, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it.
  I would love for the President to have this authority, as he should 
have it. I would love to give him this authority, but I think unless he 
is going to go under FISA, he ought to come ask for it. I think that he 
needs it, I think it is proper.
  But when we are told, as we have been on the Judiciary Committee by 
the Attorney General, that he feels that any domestic surveillance 
could be okay, he wouldn't rule it out, what isn't allowed? Why does 
the President need FISA at all if he can simply go around it? What 
purpose does FISA serve? Why did we go through what we went through for 
months and months with the initial PATRIOT Act and then for a year to 
reauthorize it?
  In the end, we had to ask ourselves, after hearing the testimony of 
the Attorney General, why did we do this? Why are we so specific and so 
careful about the powers that we give to the executive when they can 
simply ignore it and go on their own? It simply begs the question if 
you are not going to use FISA, why not just run amuck?
  I submit that the acid test for Republicans on this has to be, would 
we be comfortable if a Democrat were in the White House using this 
authority? I have to say I wouldn't be. But nor am I comfortable with a 
member of my own party having it.
  There is a separation of powers argument here. We are a coequal 
branch of government, and I think it is our constitutional obligation 
to say if you are not going to use FISA, tell us why. Tell us what we 
need to do to make it more applicable.
  We have offered that numerous times in the Judiciary Committee, yet 
we are told, no, you don't need to change it. Of course we don't need 
to change it if they can simply go around it. So I think the 
gentleman's amendment is perfectly proper.
  Believe me, if this amendment passes, and the administration feels 
compelled, they will come directly to Congress and ask for the 
authority, but they will do it right, and I think the Congress will be 
glad to give it to them. But there has to be bounds here.
  We are the elected representatives. It struck me when one of the 
Members in opposition to this amendment said a lot of people in the 
executive branch know about this program. That ought to be disturbing 
to a lot of us, that far more people in the executive branch know about 
this program than the elected representatives of the people. Does that 
not disturb anybody around here that many people over in the executive 
know about it and we don't?
  We are told in the National Security Act that the President is 
supposed to inform the committees of jurisdiction. It doesn't say a few 
members of those committees, the committees of jurisdiction.
  I think we simply ought to follow this. This is a reasonable 
amendment. I would urge those in my party and the other party to 
support it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in offering 
this amendment.
  I think we should all be able to agree on a couple things. This is an 
extremely important issue. It should be beyond partisan politics. We 
should use all our means to intercept communications from al Qaeda for 
our national security. We should also abide by the rule of law.
  The rule of law is not an a la carte thing. You don't get to pick and 
choose which laws you like and which laws you don't like. We don't say 
to the American people when we pass statutes in this Congress and they 
are duly signed by the President in accordance with the Constitution, 
pick the ones you like to comply with and ignore the ones we don't 
like.
  Well, this President and any President should not be held to any 
different standard than the American people when it comes to abiding by 
laws duly passed by this Congress and signed by the President in 
accordance with the Constitution, and that is what this debate is all 
about.
  The amendment is very simple. It is so straightforward, I am just 
going to read a portion of it right now. ``None of the funds made 
available in this act may be used to engage in electronic surveillance 
in the United States except as authorized under the Foreign

[[Page H4281]]

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978'' and other chapters cited here.
  In other words, comply with the laws passed by this Congress and 
signed by the President.
  Now, we have heard from our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee 
to trust us, this is a needed program. A lot of us haven't had the 
benefit of that information. But I would say, many of us have not 
disputed the need for the program.
  Maybe we should have this program. We certainly want to intercept any 
communications from al Qaeda. But it does concern me that the members 
of the same Intelligence Committee cannot tell us whether or not the 
program as it is currently configured is complying with FISA. That 
certainly is not a classified thing, whether or not it is configured to 
comply with FISA. The fact that the members of the Intelligence 
Committee cannot tell us whether it is configured with FISA or not is 
troubling.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, all of the articles in the Washington Post 
that talked about this said that it wasn't, in some cases. None of us 
get in trouble for disclosing that fact. Your amendment doesn't 
restrict money if it does comply with it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, absolutely. If it 
complies with FISA, it is fine.
  Now, what is troubling is the Attorney General was asked way back why 
he didn't come to Congress to seek changes to the law to accommodate 
this program, and he said he considered that possibility, but then he 
didn't think Congress would pass it. Well, if that is your conclusion, 
you don't get to just say, well, I am going to ignore the law and 
circumvent it. You have to work with Congress.
  What is really troubling is I think all of us here, if we heard the 
same information that members of the Intelligence Committee say they 
have access to, would also conclude it may be a necessary program. But 
if it is, let's put it within the confines of the law. That is all this 
amendment does.
  Yes, it authorizes electronic surveillance. We want it to authorize 
electronic surveillance. But we want to authorize electronic 
surveillance within the confines of existing law, and if existing law 
can't accommodate that program, let's come back here, let's pass a 
statute and change it.
  Those who say FISA hasn't been changed, it is outdated, the fact of 
the matter is we have made eight changes to FISA since its enactment in 
1978. We can make more changes to FISA right now to accommodate this 
program.
  But let's just make it clear: If you don't think you can get a law 
passed by the Congress, you don't get to choose to ignore it. It is not 
an a la carte system. Our Constitution is based on the rule of law. We 
can protect the American people, we can intercept al Qaeda 
communications, and we can do it in accordance with the rule of law.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the authors of this amendment. The 
debate here and potentially the outcome confirm a very important point: 
We do not suffer in this country from a problem of the Presidential 
usurpation of power. We suffer from congressional dereliction of duty. 
It is not a case of the President overreaching. It is a case of us 
ducking and dodging and letting him do all the tough issues.
  This amendment is a very simple one. Now, Members have said on the 
other side, I heard the gentleman from Kansas say, why don't you bring 
in a bill? Two reasons: First of all, if we brought in a bill, it would 
never see the light of day. How can a majority party which has 
specialized in strangling legislation at its birth complain when we 
don't think that is a good way to debate important issues?
  But there is another reason. This is one that can sustain a veto. The 
Supreme Court has made it very clear: It will not referee disputes 
between the executive and legislative branches. The only way you can 
put some restraint on a President who is acting without restraint is by 
an amendment that says there are limits on what he can do with the 
money.
  Now, we have heard selected quotations from John Jay. Poor old John 
Jay hasn't been mentioned in years. I am glad his spirit has been 
invoked. But nobody much cares about John Jay most of the time.
  We have had some Supreme Court cases cited. Youngstown Sheet and Tube 
against Sawyer, which restricted the President in a time of war, was 
not mentioned.
  Let's be very clear: History does not dictate the answer. This calls 
on every Member of this House to say what kind of Constitution do you 
want? Do you want one in which the President can have unchecked 
executive power, not just in time of war, but any time?
  We are in what the President now says is a war against terrorism that 
is unlikely to have an end. So we are not talking about temporary 
wartime powers. We are talking about what kind of Constitution do you 
want?
  We have a President who has asserted his right to do whatever he 
thinks necessary to protect the country, including, remember, arresting 
American citizens and having them incarcerated indefinitely with no 
chance to present a case. The Supreme Court said, whoa, that goes a 
little too far. But this is what the President has asserted with regard 
to FISA.
  One gentleman said, well, remember what Griffin Bell said. I will be 
honest with you, I have found that as a general principle, ignoring 
Griffin Bell is a good idea. I have always done that in important 
cases. But what Griffin Bell said or didn't say doesn't tell us.
  And this is the question, not what John Jay said or this one said, 
because you can quote each other to death. What kind of Constitution do 
you want? Do you want one where the President of the United States 
without any check can do what he thinks best? Because, by the way, the 
courts won't be involved here, because they can avoid a court decision 
by never prosecuting based on this evidence.
  So the only potential check here is if we say no. Yes, you can 
wiretap, as long as you can get a warrant. And getting warrants under 
FISA is not hard. But we do not like the principle of an unchecked 
Presidential power.
  I will yield to my friend from California if he will begin by 
answering this question: Conservatives tell me they like to be textual 
with regard to the Constitution. Would he cite for me, I thought maybe 
the Constitution got changed while I wasn't looking, so I went and read 
article II, it took about a minute and a half, it is a pretty small 
article. I am glad to see the President can get paid. It is right there 
in the Constitution.
  But would he cite for me the text of the Constitution, article II, 
which empowers the President to do this, even if Congress tells him not 
to?
  I will just add this. With regard to Youngstown Sheet and Tube, as I 
recall the analysis, it was there are three situations. I will ask for 
additional time, because I would like to have a colloquy. The President 
acting alone, the President acting with Congress, and the President 
acting in contradiction to what Congress has said.
  The analysis has always been acting with Congress, the President is 
at the peak of his powers. Acting alone, it is unclear. Acting in 
contravention to what Congress has said, he is at his weakest. Here, 
since we have FISA, this is in contravention to what Congress has told 
him to do.
  So I would now yield to the gentleman. Would he begin just by citing 
the parts of the Constitution that are relevant, and then, obviously, 
he is free to say what he wishes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I was speaking of the vesting clause in the U.S. Constitution 
that gives the President with the executive powers----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Please read it. I would ask the gentleman 
literally to please read it, because I think it doesn't say what he 
says it says. Please read it.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I don't have the exact words.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would ask, would a page bring me the 
Constitution while we are talking?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. It is the vesting clause of the 
Constitution, vesting in the President

[[Page H4282]]

the executive authority, coupled with his authority as Commander in 
Chief.
  Now, let me just say to the gentleman, so we can make it clear, I 
have never argued that the President has this authority in all things, 
as some have suggested, to kill people, to do this, to do that. I have 
cited authority which suggested in the area of gathering foreign 
intelligence, which is about what we are talking.
  Secondly, I would just say that the gentleman is right that we do 
have the power of the purse.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I don't argue at all that this 
is an inappropriate amendment to be considered, because this is the 
proper exercise of our authority to the power of the purse. What I have 
suggested is the arguments that the President is acting illegally or 
unlawfully are not appropriate, because he is acting under the 
Constitution, in my judgment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time. So the gentleman 
then agrees with this point. There is nothing inappropriate about this 
amendment. So while he believes the President is within his power to do 
this, does the gentleman agree that if this amendment is adopted by a 
majority, the President would be bound by it?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. He would be bound by it with 
respect to the expenditure of funds in this particular bill. I don't 
think there is any question about that.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So that if he can find, I thank the 
gentleman and I appreciate that. I take back my time. The gentleman 
knows the rules. The gentleman knows the rules. He may not know the 
Constitution, but he knows the rules. I take back my time just to say, 
so we understand----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let us have the common ground. The 
question here, and I think I will accept this, we are not debating 
constitutionality here; we are debating what public policy ought to be. 
The gentleman from California agrees it is appropriate for us to 
consider it and agrees that, if it passes, the President is bound by 
it.
  Now, I would yield to the gentleman. Are there other places the 
President can then find this money? Is that what the gentleman is 
saying? If the President were to be bound by this, would the gentleman 
suggest the President could then do this anyway in some other fashion? 
I would yield to him.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. This doesn't cover all 
expenditures of the President under all circumstances. This is limited 
to the funds that are contained in this bill, as you know, because it 
is an appropriation bill.
  But could I mention one thing, because there has been some question 
about this. The FISA court of review issued an opinion in 2002 which 
stated: all the other courts that have decided the issue held that the 
President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches 
to obtain foreign intelligence information.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We are beyond that. Look, I do not think 
the Constitution, I will be honest with you, I think people decide and 
then they pick the----
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Can we talk about----
  MR. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am taking back my time. Let us debate 
the merits. Let us not hide behind----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just want to say, stop hiding behind 
varying degrees of constitutional interpretation. By hiding behind 
them, I mean this: I don't think that people sat and said, oh, geez 
this is what John Jay told me and this is what I am bound by. I think 
we are talking here about what we think public policy ought to be. 
Should the President or should not the President have to get a warrant 
through FISA? That is the text of this amendment. Let us debate the 
public policy.
  I yield first to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I just want to say to the gentleman, I agree with that. I 
also think that the American Bar Association looked at this. They came 
to the conclusion that the President had to comply with the FISA law.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me just say this. Here is the 
constitutional text that my friend from California invoked, and pretty 
accurately. Good memory the gentleman has. Article II, section 1: The 
executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of 
America, period.
  Now, he says that gives him the power. This is circular. Why does the 
President have the power? Because he has the executive power. But we 
are precisely here defining for ourselves, as Americans today, what the 
executive power is and has meant to be. All this says is that he has 
the executive power. Does the executive power mean he can lock somebody 
up without a trial as he has said it does? Does the executive power 
mean he can ignore an act of Congress and wiretap when he wants to? 
That is the question. Saying that the executive power is vested in him 
simply is a way of putting the question. The question is, What is the 
executive power?
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to get to 
one question that has I think not been answered to the opposition to 
this amendment. And that is, the suggestion is by those who know the 
program better than I do that parts of it don't meet the requirements 
of FISA. And my question is, Why can't this program be authorized by 
law? Why can't we change the law to authorize it?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will answer the gentleman's question: 
because the President and his supporters do not want to concede that 
there is any limit on his power even if he could get this done through 
FISA, and that is the----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has again expired.
  Mr. FRANK. I ask for an additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reserving the right to object, and I will not 
object, but we are talking in circles. We are not even talking about 
some of the main issues that are before us. The sponsor of the 
amendment just admitted that we are talking about an authorization. 
This is an appropriations bill. This should be done at an authorization 
committee where you all are.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Just a minute. It is under my reservation.
  Let us bring this to a close. We can repeat our arguments so many 
times. I withdraw my reservation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his reservation.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. In my remaining minute, I understand, I 
will say that my good friend from Pennsylvania I think is probably not 
distressed that we are talking about something that is not the heart of 
the bill. But the fact is, I will close by this, we are talking about 
it here because this is the only enforceable way to put restraints on 
the President. And I will tell you why I think it is important. 
Chaplain Yee at Guantanamo, Burton Mayfield in Oregon, Wen Ho Lee under 
the Clinton administration, there are, sadly, cases of entirely 
innocent individuals who were prosecuted and gone after.
  I don't think the President is ill intended here. And I think the law 
enforcement people are the good guys; I just don't think they are the 
perfect guys. So I want to give them power, but I want to subject that 
to some check beforehand and some process afterwards. And that is what 
we are

[[Page H4283]]

saying here. We are fully in favor of empowering law enforcement, but 
we do not want them to be exclusive in the exercise of that power. And 
asking that they go before a judge to justify it when they are going to 
be wiretapping an American seems to us to be reasonable and to do no 
harm to America.
  And to repeat my answer to the gentleman from California: the 
opponents of this amendment are the proponents of the view that the 
President's power should be entirely unchecked, and that is dangerous.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I thank the Chair, and I appreciate the discussion and the debate 
that we have had on this amendment. I join with the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the ranking member of the subcommittee in opposing 
this amendment.
  It would jeopardize one of the most critical abilities to detect and 
prevent terrorist attacks on the United States. In addition, it would 
interfere with an ongoing course of oversight that has been conducted 
on a bipartisan basis by the leadership in the authorizing committee 
since the inception of this program.
  It is the day after 9/11 and the President has asked NSA, other parts 
of the intelligence community, the military: What is the threat? How do 
we most effectively respond? And what is the threat to the Nation? And 
he has asked the intel community and the military to come back with 
various options as how best to protect the United States in that time 
of uncertainty, and the executive branch and the various agencies come 
back with a series of proposals as to exactly what they believe can be 
done and should be done to keep America safe.
  The President doesn't act unilaterally; the President acts in a 
collaborative basis. It is not an overreaching of an Executive.
  To my colleague from Arizona, if a President of the other party went 
through the same processes that this President went through and 
exercised these authorities would I support that President? My answer 
would be different than my colleague from Arizona; the answer would be, 
yes, because the process was very straightforward. Four times within 
the first 8 months after 9/11, it was a collaborative process between 
leaders of this House and the U.S. Senate who sat down with the 
executive branch and reviewed this program in detail. Do you know what 
they said? This is a program that is necessary in a time of 
uncertainty. We support this program, and it needs to move forward.
  We have had some discussions and disagreements as to the extent of 
the number of people that should have been briefed on the authorizing 
committee. We have worked through that process, and now every single 
person who has the desire to be briefed on this program is briefed on 
the program and have had the opportunity or will be given the 
opportunity when they get new questions to have every single one of 
their questions answered.
  We have a way ahead on our authorizing committee. The ranking member 
has introduced legislation that she thinks may address some of the 
issues. But we know that FISA and electronic surveillance is a very, 
very difficult issue because technology has changed significantly since 
FISA was originally developed. And so we are going to move forward, and 
I am thrilled that within the Intelligence Committee we are going to 
continue a bipartisan way ahead. It doesn't mean we are going to agree, 
but it does mean that we have laid out a process as to what the needs 
are of the intelligence community to keep America safe, what the legal 
framework is, and evaluate the changes in technology and the 
environment so that we can do the necessary oversight and protect and 
balance civil liberties with the needs of America's security.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HARMAN. I appreciate it that you mentioned bipartisanship and 
mentioned our committee. I had not been planning to speak during this 
debate. I have great admiration for the bipartisan sponsors of this 
amendment. I also agree with their point, which is that the total 
program must comply fully with FISA. But my view is, as the chairman 
has stated, that we should deal with this issue in the legislative 
committee. And the reason we should deal with this issue in the 
legislative committee is that it is, as everybody here fully 
understands, very, very complicated. A number of us, 50 of us, are 
supporting H.R. 5371, The Listen Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoekstra was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Ms. HARMAN. I would like to ask our chairman: Will you agree that 
that bill and perhaps others will be the subject of the committee 
oversight and the subject of a legislative hearing in our committee at 
a reasonable future date?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, absolutely. And as we have talked 
about it, and I appreciate the patience of my colleague as we have 
worked through the briefings of the entire committee and as we move 
forward, the legislative hearing on H.R. 5371 and other legislative 
initiatives that some of our colleagues are developing that address 
both the FISA issues which may apply to the current program but also 
which will be further reaching in terms of taking a look at different 
technology and those type of things as that has evolved is something 
that I think we can do on a bipartisan basis, and I am committed to 
doing.
  Ms. HARMAN. And if you would yield to me again, first, to note that 
the American Bar Association and numerous civil liberties groups 
support H.R. 5371. But my further question is, Do you agree that the 
entire program should be covered by law? The President may have 
inherent authority to do things, but eavesdropping on Americans in 
America must be covered by the law that Congress passed. I am not 
asking you to agree to that point because you may not, although I feel 
strongly about it. But I am asking you whether you agree that it is the 
Congress that should determine the legal basis for the President's 
actions and not the White House acting unilaterally.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time. I thank the gentlewoman for her 
comments. From my perspective, it is very, very important that Congress 
create the legal framework by which the President exercises his 
authority. And the only thing that could overrule our legislative box 
that in our case we put the intelligence community in would be the 
overriding authority of the Constitution.
  I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this issue 
to the floor in the form of this amendment today. I think that they 
have done the country a great service. If this House had been doing its 
job properly, this issue would have been out here on the floor of the 
House of Representatives quite some time ago.
  The fundamental principle that we are dealing with here is simply 
this: we are a Nation of law. All of our law is based upon the 
Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the 
President of the United States the authority to violate the law. The 
President of the United States has violated the law.
  This is not the first administration that has sought to govern the 
country on the basis of the creation of a climate of fear. As one of 
our colleagues pointed out earlier in this debate, that can be traced 
all the way back to the Adams administration, the first Adams 
administration. But that attempt eventually was overthrown, and it 
didn't take a long time.

                              {time}  1715

  The last time we had a President of the United States who wanted to 
engage in illegal surveillance on the American people, the last time we 
had a President like this one who was engaging in that kind of 
activity, was the Nixon administration. President Nixon engaged in 
illegal surveillance on the American people. As a result of that and 
other things, he was forced out of office.
  Subsequently the Congress developed the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, FISA, in 1978. There are some of us who believe that 
FISA itself is a compromise of the fourth amendment of the 
Constitution. The fourth amendment of the Constitution guarantees

[[Page H4284]]

independence and privacy to every single American citizen, and there 
are some of us who believe that the FISA Act compromises that. 
Nevertheless, it is the law.
  So what do we have now? We have a President who has gone beyond the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, who has engaged in illegal 
surveillance against the American citizens.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would direct the Member not to refer to the 
President of the United States in accusatory terms.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak in the way that I 
believe is appropriate, and I will continue to do so.
  The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was set up to ensure that 
the President did not violate the law and go beyond it. This 
administration has violated the law. We have not addressed that. The 
House of Representatives, the Senate has not addressed this issue.
  Now we have an opportunity to address it by virtue of the fact that 
we have this amendment before us. This is an important vote today. 
Every Member of this House should act in accordance with the law and 
accordance with the Constitution and vote for this amendment.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will 
be very quick. Two final points in response to what the chairman and 
the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee had to say.
  First, there is legislation on this subject, bipartisan legislation, 
that was introduced on March 16. We have had no oversight hearing on 
it, no markup on it, nothing, zero, zilcho, nada, which is why we are 
on the appropriations bill, the only vehicle in which we could raise 
this issue.
  Second, both Members have said that this amendment would somehow 
jeopardize an existing NSA program. What that means is that far from my 
colleague from California's point, that the program does not comply 
with FISA. Otherwise, how could it be jeopardized? So there is an 
admission by the chair of the committee that the existing program does 
not meet the requirements of FISA.
  What still has gone unanswered is why can we not make changes to FISA 
and the existing law? If this is such a vital program, why does it have 
to be done outside of the law?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the major point here that the opposition to 
this makes is the President has inherent authority. That has not been 
tested at the Supreme Court because once FISA was enacted, that was 
enacted to limit unbridled Presidential authority. I believe FISA is 
the only way that you can proceed; that the President must go to FISA 
if he is going to conduct these kind of foreign intelligence 
activities.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
exactly right. That is the law currently. Whether that law violates the 
Constitution is an open question. Nevertheless, because it has not been 
contested, it is the law, and the President, the administration, all of 
us have to live by that law.
  There is nothing that gives the President of the United States or 
anyone in this administration the authority to engage in surveillance 
of the American people, not a single American citizen, outside of the 
definition requirements within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court has made 
it very clear it will not referee fundamental constitutional debates 
over power between the executive and legislative branches. Only if you 
got a case would this get to the Court, and they will dodge and duck 
and never allow there to be a case. This is the only constitutional way 
to confront it.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  This is, I think, a very important debate, and I am glad we are 
having it. I think this is an absolutely terrible amendment. The 
question is really do you believe we are at war or not. The President 
has made it very clear. You have a known al Qaeda operative.
  Let us go back to World War II. You have got a German or a Japanese 
agent, in Germany, in the south Pacific, speaking to various people, 
and we are listening in. Now, would the American people in World War 
II, if they began speaking to somebody in the United States or a known 
American citizen, want the listening device put down and go to a judge? 
That is what we are talking about.
  He is in a cave, he is in Afghanistan, he is in Baghdad, he is 
talking. Let us talk about Israel, okay? Do you think the Mossad, if 
somebody is speaking from Jordan, and there are known terrorists 
operatives, and they are speaking to somebody in Israel, they want to 
put down the listening device and go in front of a judge? That is what 
we are talking about. Are we at war, or are we not at war? It is a 
known al Qaeda operative.
  They are overseas, and suddenly they are talking to an American 
citizen, be it in the United States or elsewhere, and it is time to put 
down and stop listening and go find a judge and put together a brief 
and get a judge to review it? I believe we are at war, and they want to 
kill us. They want to kill our wives. They want to kill our children.
  This is a good debate because this debate has been going on for 
months and months, and this is a horrible, horrible amendment because 
it ties one hand behind our back, and it should be defeated, and we 
should vote it soon and vote it down.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy, and I do think 
this is an important debate. I appreciate your perspective.
  I want to ask you a forthright question. Do you understand that under 
the scenario you have posed, that you can go over the executive, 72 
hours after the event, 72 hours after the event, you go and get a 
warrant, you can continue your tap, you can get the intelligence, 72 
hours? Do you understand that is allowed?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I understand that I want them to keep 
listening. I want the information, and this is what the debate is 
about. You want to stop. You want go to a judge. I do not think we 
should.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to make 
sure you understand. I want to make sure the gentleman understands that 
under this amendment you do not have to stop listening to anybody ever. 
We want to continue listening, and we simply require that 72 hours 
after that, we ask the executive to have another set of eyeballs take a 
look at it to make sure it is compliant. Does the gentleman understand 
this amendment does not stop anybody ever, as long as you go and have a 
warrant 72 hours after the intelligence gathering? Do you understand 
that is the purpose of our amendment? Because it is.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, that begs the 
question as to whether or not you can, in fact, effectively do that 
with the 72-hour limitation. There are those running the program that 
suggest that that is not possible, not because necessarily the 
limitation on going to court, but all of the work that needs to go 
forward before you get to the court to get the approval. That is what 
we ought to be talking about.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I 
understand it, what you all have laid out is not that easy to do 
basically; that you have to make a case in front of a judge, and if it 
is a known al Qaeda operative, I think we should be listening to all of 
their conversations.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, if you will yield just for a moment, I just 
want to make sure members understand what we are voting on.
  If this amendment passes, the President of the United States and his 
executive authority will be able to continue

[[Page H4285]]

to listen to these conversations unimpeded, unimpeded, as long as they 
go to a judge 72 hours after.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think they 
should be able to do that. If you have a known al Qaeda operative, we 
should be listening to all their conversations. We should be listening 
to all conversations from all al Qaeda operatives.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee in a colloquy. Let me just state before we have this 
colloquy, my position is that FISA, as presently drafted, must cover 
the entire program. This is my position after being fully briefed on 
the program, as the chairman said, and being fully briefed by the NSA 
and the Justice Department about how FISA works. It is my position that 
FISA can and must cover the full program. Be that as it may, I would 
like to ask the chairman some questions.
  As you noted, Mr. Chairman, some of us on the committee and a total 
of 50 Members of this House have introduced H.R. 5371, the LISTEN Act, 
which would require that this program be brought fully under FISA, and 
which also states that more resources will be made available to change 
the way FISA is implemented so that using electronic means, more staff, 
whatever it takes, there will be a more efficient way to get 72-hour 
emergency warrants. I know you are aware of the contents of our bill.
  My question to you is are you prepared to hold a legislative hearing 
in the Intelligence Committee on our bill and any other bills that may 
be pending before our committee that address this issue of FISA as it 
is connected to the NSA program?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for yielding.
  As the gentlewoman knows, we have worked through this very much in a 
collaborative process. We followed on the heels of the former chairman 
and the former ranking member in trying to make sure that we do this in 
a bipartisan basis.
  We have had a number of briefings on this program to fully understand 
how FISA works both from the NSA, from Justice and a number of place. 
It is interesting for those people who are not part of the committee, 
who make categorical statements that nothing has happened, and we know 
that we have had a way forward, where we have done things.
  But in terms of your simple question, I just had to take the shot, 
the opportunity to respond to just what I thought were some unfair 
characterizations as to what you and I have been doing in the 
committee.
  I commit that we will have a legislative hearing on this and other 
proposals that will create a framework that hopefully can move out of 
committee, but there will be a legislative hearing, yes.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, are you prepared 
following the legislative hearing or hearings to report a bill to the 
House floor? Will you personally agree not to block any bill from being 
reported to the House floor?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I will not use my position as chairman of the committee 
to block a consensus of the Intelligence Committee to move a bill to 
the floor.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify this for myself and 
others who are listening.
  You are prepared to consider this bill, H.R. 5371, which would force 
this entire program to comply with FISA. Actually much credit for the 
construct of H.R. 5371 does go to Mr. Schiff and Mr. Flake. I just want 
to clarify, and then I would like to yield, H.R. 5371 says the entire 
program must comply with FISA, and we will hold a legislative hearing 
on this bill and other bills, the committee will then report 
legislation to the House floor; is that correct?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. We will hold a legislative hearing, and we will 
determine whether there is a consensus in the committee that will 
enable us to move a bill that would reform FISA and move it to the 
floor.
  Ms. HARMAN. Well, our bill, reclaiming my time, does not reform FISA. 
It just gives resources to make FISA work.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we are further along than 
we were, but the phrase ``consensus,'' consensus is nice, but nothing 
in the House rules or the Constitution or the writings of John Jay say 
that it is a prerequisite for moving legislation.
  I would hope that the gentleman would say on an issue that we all 
agree is important, a bill will come to the floor, the majority will 
decide, but I do not think those of us not on the committee ought to 
only get an opportunity to legislate on this if there is a consensus.
  Now, if you are telling us do not do it as an amendment to the 
appropriations bill, Mr. Chairman, because the bill is going to come 
forward, we need to know that a bill is going to come forward, 
consensus or not, and then the House can decide what it wants to do.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, and 
I would appreciate it if he would answer that comment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, to my good friend from Massachusetts, 
consensus means that we have 12 votes to move a bill out of committee. 
All right. Consensus does not mean 21 ayes and zero noes. Okay. So 
thank you for that clarification.
  I think it is also important to know that moving a bill to floor that 
would deal with this issue, we would probably not be the only committee 
of jurisdiction. Other committees would have jurisdiction as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Harman) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Schiff, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Harman was 
allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I just point out to the chair and ranking 
member, I know my bill, and I assume that the gentlewoman's also, has 
now been referred to both Intel and Judiciary, and without a similar 
commitment from Judiciary, there is really no commitment that would 
come to the floor.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish the Judiciary Committee would also 
act. Mr. Conyers is a lead author with me of the bill I am talking 
about. But I think it is critical that the Intelligence Committee act 
because we have the membership that is briefed on the program, and if 
we report a bill to the House floor for action, I would hope that the 
House would respond to that promptly.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I must confess I am a little ambivalent about this 
amendment because the amendment seems to say that we should obey the 
law, and some people might get the implication if we don't pass the 
amendment that we are free not to obey the law.
  The amendment says that ``funds are prohibited from being used to 
engage in electronic surveillance in the United States except as 
authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or title 
III.'' Well, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act says that. It 
says that this title and title III shall be the exclusive, exclusive, 
that is the word used in the law, the exclusive authority for domestic 
surveillance, for domestic wiretapping. Anything outside of that is 
illegal. Anything the administration is doing outside of FISA and title 
III, by the terms of FISA, is illegal.
  Certainly we should obey the law. I will vote for this amendment 
because I can't imagine the House saying we shouldn't obey the law, 
although I hear some of that from the other side. The fact is that this 
entire program, insofar as it is done outside of FISA or title III, is 
by definition illegal because the law says so, period.
  Now, I just came from the airport, and I heard a little of the 
debate, with people saying, well, maybe it is too hard to get a 
warrant. Maybe the work that has to go on beforehand is too

[[Page H4286]]

hard and takes too long to get a warrant, even 72 hours after the 
surveillance begins, which is what FISA says. Well, if that is the 
case, let the administration make that case and let us amend FISA.
  Remember why FISA was passed. FISA was passed because of tyrannical, 
illegal conduct by the FBI and by prior administrations that was 
considered by the Congress. After hearings and after revelations, they 
said, my God, we curtailed liberty in this country. We invaded the 
liberty of law-abiding, peaceful citizens under the cover of law, and 
we should never do that again; we are going to enact some safeguards. 
And Congress enacted FISA to be that safeguard.
  And to say if you want to do domestic surveillance, if you think 
someone is a Communist agent, in those days, or an al Qaeda agent 
today, here is the procedure by which you get the authority to wiretap 
that person. Should a known al Qaeda agent be wiretapped all the time? 
I would say, yes, but a court would say, yes, too. In fact, we provided 
in that law for a secret court. You can go get an exparte order on 
secret evidence in a secret proceeding, and you can even do it after 
the fact, 72 hours.
  Now, maybe it should be 96 hours or 5 days. Maybe someone could make 
a case for that. Let Congress change the law for that. But simply to 
say, the FBI tells us, the administration tells us that obeying the law 
is too difficult?
  I remember a few years ago hearing ringing phrases from Henry Hyde 
and a lot of other people about the rule of law. We should impeach a 
President because he allegedly violated the rule of law. And now we 
come to this floor and say ignore the law? The administration, if it is 
too hard, can ignore the law?
  The law says that FISA and title III are the exclusive authority for 
wiretapping in the United States, period. No ifs, ands, or buts. All 
this amendment does is repeat it.
  As I said, I am ambivalent about it because I don't know that we 
should have to repeat it, but apparently we do. So I urge the adoption 
of this amendment, and I would remind everybody that to vote against 
this amendment is to say we are endorsing the violation of the law. We 
don't care about the rule of law. We endorse the administration's 
illegal and extraconstitutional action and we are making ourselves 
complicit in that and there is no protection, because the President now 
claims the power to disobey any law under his inherent authority under 
article II as Commander in Chief.
  That is a power even George, III, didn't claim, to just disobey the 
law when he judges it necessary because of his being Commander in Chief 
of the armed services. He is Commander in Chief of the Armed Services, 
not of the United States. He is not Commander in Chief of the United 
States. He is not a monarch.
  No President should have the power to disobey the law or to set aside 
the law when he thinks it necessary. If he thinks changing the law is 
necessary, come to Congress, change the law, enact a change in FISA. I 
might support it; I might not. But Congress will work its will. Enact a 
change in FISA.
  Simply to say, as this amendment does, that no funds shall be used 
except in accordance with law, because the law says no electronic 
surveillance shall occur, that is the words, no electronic surveillance 
except as provided in this act or in title III. That is the law. That 
is what this says. If we have any shame at all, we should adopt this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


[...]
 

                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207, 
noes 219, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 295]

                               AYES--207

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--219

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)

[[Page H4290]]


     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Hunter
     Napolitano
     Nussle

                              {time}  1827

  Messrs. SULLIVAN, McCAUL of Texas, BONILLA, HOBSON, NEY, SOUDER, 
GOHMERT, and EHLERS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GORDON, BISHOP of Georgia, Ms. KAPTUR, Messrs. BERRY, COOPER, 
WAMP, ROSS, REYES, SALAZAR, and SHAYS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.